In Twelve Angry Men, juror 8 was a necessity to the trial as he was the only thing in the way of the deliberation immediately ending on a guilty verdict, six pages into the play. Despite his undeniable skill in cross-examination and presentation of ideas, several of the tactics juror 8 used to instill doubt in the other jurors would be detrimental to an actual deliberation process. The most indisputable example of this is during Act 2 of the play. Jurors 8 and 3 had been clashing throughout the entire act until juror 3 finally reached his limit on page 42 of Act 2, shouting, “You come in here with your heart bleeding out all over the floor about slum kids and injustice and you make up all these wild stories, and you’ve got some soft-hearted old …show more content…
I’m getting real sick of you. What’s the matter with you people? This kid is guilty! He’s got to burn! We’re letting him slip through our fingers.” At this point, the most beneficial thing for the case would be to shut him down and redirect the conversation because going in this direction of discussion adds nothing to the deliberation. But this does not happen. Juror 8 knows he can use juror 3’s emotion to his advantage. So he, right after, goes along with juror 3, saying, “I’m sorry for you.”, “What it must feel like to want to pull the switch!”, and “You’re a sadist…”, continuously escalating the situation. By this point juror 3 is raging, telling him to shut up. Now on page 43 of Act 2, is when juror 8 delivers his finishing statement, “You want to see this boy die because you personally want it—not because of the facts. You are a beast. You disgust me.”, effectively driving juror 3 into lunging and screaming, “Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” In this way, juror 3 creates a good argument as to why saying I’ll kill you is not always meant literally. However, the issue is that he created this evidence himself. He did not use personal experiences, or the experiences of others to reinforce his
Ultimately, this leads to Juror 4 and Juror 8 to use their wits and reasoning to persuade the other jurors to choose between “guilty,” or “not guilty.” In the drama Twelve Angry Men, Rose indirectly characterizes Juror #4 as reasonable, in order
In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.
He is trying to convince the jurors to explore different perspectives rather than making assumptions about the boy being a rotten kid because of where he is from. Coming from a different approach inspires the other jurors to actually dig into the case rather than just brushing over it. Juror #8 declaring that he just wants to talk leads into the discussion for the rest of the play. He benefits from this open discussion by generating a lane to pitch logical appeals that prove the boy is not
Juror Three is an angry, frustrated and a small minded person that wants this kid to be punished for the sole reason that 3’s own kid beat him and ran away, so three is a very hateful person to the kid on trial even though he doesn’t even know him. The vote is 11-1 in favor of not guilty, three is the only juror to vote not guilty, and he is persistent with the facts that the other jurors have proved could be false, so in a rant he yells at the jurors that they are wrong and the kid is guilty, until eight says something that makes him change in an instant. Juror Three states, “That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they're like.
Juror 3 uses his personal beliefs to affect the emotions of the other
In the play, Juror #3 quickly shows his bias with colorism against the defendant being dark-skinned. On page 11, it states “The man is a dangerous killer. You could see it”. This clearly shows how Juror #3 is accusing the defendant of being a killer based on his dark skin appearance. This juror did the opposite of rendering a fair decision as he judges it based on an individual's skin color, not on a testimony.
Although 3 does change his mind in the end, he is the last to change so he is the leader for the guilty side. In the end, the reader can look at figure 1. and take away the fact that juror 8 is the main character, and that jurors 3 and 8 causes the main conflict in the
As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.
While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.
What if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.
He realizes this when he “contorts [his face] and he begins to pound on [the] table with his fist,” and “seems [to be] about to cry” (Rose 63). This is when Juror 3 realizes that his negative experience with his son has dictated his distaste toward the boy and that he had no real reason to oppose him as much as he did. Though being the most stubborn of the jurors, being able to re-examine the beliefs and opinions he is so fixated on empowers Juror 3 to be able to demonstrate personal accountability, showing how important personal accountability is to confronting one’s past and biases. Throughout the play, because of his loud and opinionated personality, Juror 3 assumes leadership of those voting guilty. This is in stark contrast to Juror 8, a thoughtful person who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt who is the first person to vote not guilty to give the boy a chance.
The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations.
In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
Other jurors feel annoyed after listening to Juror 8 statements.